Atheism

[OnionsAndDragons]

And we're back to those stupid religious people aren't able to make rational decisions...

Having read the source material and heard the man speak on his positions relative to it, this is not the intent of that statement.

Germaine to this conversation are two notions of truth as Tyson would state it: Objective and Personal.

Objective truths are empirical, testable and based on quantifiable results.

Personal truths are beliefs that individuals hold true for whatever non empirical reasons that are therefor not transferable to other individuals.

Believers can absolutely base decisions on Objective truths, because most of them do so all the time throughout daily life. Non-believers can also base decisions on Personal truths.

The point of Tyson's statement is to illustrate that it is a bad idea to allow policy decisions to be dictated by anything other than Objective truths.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

Tyson lost me on his recent Joe Rogan appearance. It seems he's been in a position where his job is to talk and know everything long enough that he has fallen into the trap of thinking he knows everything. Rogan recently had another episode with an SME dealing extensively with Egyptian pyramids, etc. He asked a question of Tyson relevant to that conversation, and Tyson was completely dismissive of the concept, in a way that made clear he wasn't even familiar with the idea/question that Rogan had raised. Then later, he went off on a whole topic about how two NBA basketballs can fit through a hoop side by side. It's been a long time since I played, but I have seen two balls stuck in a hoop plenty of times. Twenty seconds of googling reveals the numeric reason why. If Tyson is so adamant about these simple topics where he is so obviously ignorant, I'm done. Too much work to fact check every damn thing he says. And if you have to do that, what's the point of listening to him in the first place? Self-learning might as well be more self-directed.

[blues]

Oh God, is this discussion still going on?

[Stephanie B]

Oh God, is this discussion still going on?

It makes my head hurt.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Universe is God's Forum.

That's my theology for the moment.

[ER_STL]

I understand the need to defend against objections.

I’m not holding my breath for any explanations to appear that will withstand the fires of scientific skepticism. That is my bar. You may have different criteria.

You know, I've been saying in an increasingly loud voice to the leadership and the critical thinkers of our church that Christians need to become much more versed in the objections that are brought against Christianity and a creation/intelligent design world view. It was spelled out clearly in the Bible by Peter: " But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect". So the call is clear, but it is my opinion that many Christians miss that last part - to do so with love towards those who object. It's the only way to make a discourse such as this possible.

In truth, a valid defense of the faith should start with the argument that something intelligent - and something other than a purely natural and unguided force - is responsible for what we see around us today. Calling that intelligence "God", the argument goes from there that if He exists, has He spoken to us and does He speak to us today? Christians can and should use logical and theological arguments to support this position but that doesn't mean that a look at the science behind a designed world should be ignored. This in my opinion is where most fall short.

GuanoLoco, many Intelligent Designers (I'm going to use that term rather than a Creationist) agree that the Big Bang theory is the most plausible explanation for how the universe came to be, as the evidence for such a start appears to be very strong. That's not what's up for debate but rather what caused it to happen. Following the principle of Causality as one of the most fundamental truths of our cosmos today, the IDist therefore logically assumes that it cannot be uncaused, looks to see what may have caused it to happen and concludes that something intelligent was responsible (i.e. the Cosmological Argument). This is usually backed up by a myriad of other factors such as the nature by which the universe appears to be tuned, the similarities of its components with other things known to be designed, etc, etc...there are many reasons. ID is also a much more logical answer to me when compared to the infinite BB model, the multiverse model, infinite causal chains, etc. I am however an unabashed fan of Star Trek Next Generation and their temporal causal loops, even if their philosophies run counter to my own.

The skeptic or atheist will argue that just because we don't yet know what caused the Big Bang doesn't automatically mean that the answer lies in ID, and will often chide IDers that if God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? I've always been somewhat puzzled by this response because if we define God as the author and creator of the existence we see, it wouldn't be logical to hold him to the rules He has created. He created the universe; He's not bound by its rules. Atheists dismiss this as an answer of convenience that gives IDers a way out of any argument for which they may not offer a reasonable answer; just say God did it. I'll agree that Christians can sometimes be guilty of associating to the super-natural what may instead have a natural explanation. It's more unfortunate however how quickly the atheist seeks to dismiss even the possibility that there is a greater intelligence at work.

In the end, I personally enjoy watching the discussion unfold and I don't find that it runs counter to the Great Commission as defined by Jesus. People today aren't usually influenced by door-to-door handouts, forceful quoting of Scripture or shallow testimony, but they are more likely to be impacted by someone who loves them, who encourages them and who's ready to answer the eventual question of "why do you believe what you believe?"

[Stephanie B]

“We don’t know why ____________ happened, so God must have done it” is an argument that I don’t put stock in. I’m comfortable with the idea that we don’t yet understand something without having to ascribe it to divine causes/intervention.

[Clusterfrack]

"Intelligent Design" is a risky proposition for the religious because design is testable using science and engineering principles. In Christian theology, there are two Arguments of Design:

1. The Argument from Design (Thomas Aquinas): Design exists therefore God exists

2. The Argument to Design: God exists therefore Design exists

Argument 1 was the goal of the "natural theology" of the 1800's, and current ID advocates. If you can demonstrate that the world is designed, than that proves God exists. The problem is that if design did not exist (contraposition of Argument 2), this would refute the existence of God.

As a biophysicist, I have a deep understanding of how living things are put together, and how living systems work at the mechanistic level. Life is a crazy-quilt of suboptimal mechanisms, constrained by the random and contingent history of evolution. It's obvious to me that there are two possibilities: no design, or the designer is retarded or insane.

If I were religious, I would stick to faith and avoid the arguments of design.

[GuanoLoco]

Y... It's more unfortunate however how quickly the atheist seeks to dismiss even the possibility that there is a greater intelligence at work. ..."

I think there problem is that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for our origin, but not all are equally probable much less compelling to atheists and other skeptics.

The explanation of a supreme being / greater intelligence who exists before the Big Bang, outside of time and space, that has a number of 'interesting' characteristics generally including but not limited to:

• Original (No greater being or thing precedes this being and creation)
• Omnipotent
• Omniscient
• Interventionalist (miracles, etc.)
• Takes Requests (otherwise why pray?)
• Demands 'belief based on faith' and rewards certain behaviors over others (but only after you die)
• Is capable of stopping but capriciously allows extreme human suffering through no misdeed of the sufferer
• Sentences those to do not comply to eternal suffering (seems a bit harsh)
• Rewards the worthy with heaven, 99 virgins (I joke, sort-of), or whatever
• add your own list of favorites to suit

In the set of all possible explanations, and absent a 'blind leap of faith', I'm finding this particular explanation to be neither probable nor compelling.

Truthfully, I find it wildly improbable compared to less fantastical explanations.

Don't take it personally, atheists are skeptical and quick to dismiss ALL improbable explanations, not just theistic ones. This also includes scientific hypothesis for which compelling evidence does not exist.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As a biophysicist, I have a deep understanding of how living things are put together, and how living systems work at the mechanistic level. Life is a crazy-quilt of suboptimal mechanisms, constrained by the random and contingent history of evolution. It's obvious to me that there are two possibilities: no design, or the designer is retarded or insane.

I should really stay out this (sigh) but just to add to this. As trained as a visual neuroscientist, we went through detail analyses of such problems in the visual system. We traced the evolutionary paths of color vision as it came and went and came again. The eye is thought to be exquisite but it is a finely tuned cludge to compensate for a mess of optical and neural problems.

I wouldn't hire that design team. I supposed the design teams for hemorrhoids and flesh eating bacteria submitted the cheapest proposals.